This is a topic that I have a lot of opinions on, but I first want to say something nice about Netflix before I get into it. Netflix is doing exactly what they should be doing in rolling out this product by mimicking their highly successful television programming launch. While there were series before Arrested Development and House of Cards, they weren't what you'd call "pop culture moments." Yet when Netflix reinvested in a long dormant series that was beloved by fanboys and then invited movie stars Robin Wright and Kevin Spacey to star in a prestige drama, they made massive waves, and managed to land the execution by making the products too intriguing to ignore, gaining Emmy nominations and major buzz. With a sequel to a beloved Best Picture nominee and films produced by one of the most bankable stars of the past twenty years, they are doing the same thing again with their filmic roll-out; they are creating two very different products, at least one of which will intrigue a vast swath of the movie-going audience (it's worth noting that they have ventured a bit into original content already with a number of comedy specials and documentaries including The Square, a documentary about the Egyptian Revolution, which has already added to their prestige quotient in terms of films, becoming their first produced film to land an Oscar nomination, and it also went on to win three Emmys).
This model of investing in major stars and well-loved but discarded series has been used all across digital media platforms to establish their foothold in original content. Look at Amazon Prime hiring John Goodman or Yahoo creating that sixth season of Community (though with Chevy Chase, Donald Glover, and Yvette Nicole Brown all gone from the series, I don't know what the point of keeping the lights on at Greendale really is, but that's a thought for a different time). This is a model that clearly the entire industry is looking at, and Netflix is obviously a leader in that industry-the question becomes now whether or not the industry will follow suit with Netflix's less-chartered entry into digital movies.
The reality is, as was so eloquently stated by Jon Brooks over at KQED Arts last month, Netflix is no longer really about movies. It's become a bit of a joke, in fact, in terms of its traditional filmic content, and true cinephiles generally tend to stick to the discs (I am usually mocked mercilessly for being a "grandpa" when I say I still get the discs, but then I ask the person mocking me what the last few things that they watched on streaming were, and inevitably it's a series of Breaking Bads and Orange is the New Blacks-nearly always it's binge-watching television shows). And I think that's awesome-I love the idea of there being a place out there that's a one-stop shop for TV shows of all ilks. I think that Netflix, personally, should embrace that with its streaming, continuing to find new ways to add to their television library with older series (Gilmore Girls this fall is a great start). However, its filmic content, particularly on streaming, is not strong enough to warrant a major entry into the film market at this time. I know that part of what they're doing with these movies is trying to fake it until they make it-perhaps if they become a destination for the movies than it will be an easier way to expand their back catalog-but I just don't see it working that way. The movies still have a lot of options, particularly the still profitable DVD market, and if Netflix is biting off the hand that feeds it, then why would they reward such a beast?
Because that's what I don't quite get here. While I can see how individuals like Harvey Weinstein and Adam Sandler could profit from using their brand name and profits from experiments on Netflix, I'm not seeing the larger incentive for the Hollywood industry to help Netflix break into the movie business. The reality is that the movies are ten to twenty times more expensive to make than a television series is, and there doesn't seem to be a legitimate way to recoup say, the budget of a Transformers 4 or Guardians of the Galaxy if you are releasing a film simultaneously in theaters and on digital. There's a reason that we haven't gone to simply an On Demand only option already-the studios don't see it as a viable option for their larger scale productions (that's why we only see independent movies and low-budget films being released simultaneously in theaters and on your Comcast menu). As exciting as this is (I'll certainly be seeing the new Crouching Tiger sequel, though I will probably try for a theater first if there's one that is actually willing to show it), I don't see the studios embracing this quite yet, and without some investment with the studio brands, it's doubtful that Netflix will be able to enjoy the sustained success that they have brokered with television.
I will end with one last little diatribe, but it's mostly just a link to a few past articles. I have talked a lot about my love of the movie theater (see here and here and here for some examples), but I do feel that there's a real point to be made that watching a movie for the first time (or quite frankly, any time) on your iPhone is not particularly fun. A movie is big, and bold, and shouldn't be enjoyed in a 2x4" frame. You miss so much by doing that, and while I truly marvel at the initiative put forth by Netflix (this is an exciting time for original content producers, who are given more and more options to showcase their work), I'm a bit perplexed why so many people are willing to sacrifice the better experience for a little bit of convenience.
No comments:
Post a Comment